nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 183:
Line 183: − + +
→"Evolutionary View": That is naturalism.
:: There really isn't much debate in the scientific community about how the earth formed. You're right that evolution can refer to any gradual change but I don't think we should call this section the evolutionary view because it could mislead people to associate it with the theory of evolution. Would calling it the natural or uniformitarian view be too bad?
:: There really isn't much debate in the scientific community about how the earth formed. You're right that evolution can refer to any gradual change but I don't think we should call this section the evolutionary view because it could mislead people to associate it with the theory of evolution. Would calling it the natural or uniformitarian view be too bad?
::: Creationary scientists, and there's numerically lots of them, disagree with the majority about how the Earth formed. Yes, evolution can refer to any gradual change, and it can refer to biological evolution, but it can also, as in the case of the stars, refer to a gradual ''increase in complexity'', which is something more than just a "gradual ''change''". What does the "natural" view mean? Do you mean the "naturalistic" view? That might be okay. "Uniformitarian" primarily refers to geology, which is not really applicable to the formation of the planet. If you want to change it to "Naturalistic view", I won't object to that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:27, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
::: Creationary scientists, and there's numerically lots of them, disagree with the majority about how the Earth formed. Yes, evolution can refer to any gradual change, and it can refer to biological evolution, but it can also, as in the case of the stars, refer to a gradual ''increase in complexity'', which is something more than just a "gradual ''change''". What does the "natural" view mean? Do you mean the "naturalistic" view? That might be okay. "Uniformitarian" primarily refers to geology, which is not really applicable to the formation of the planet. If you want to change it to "Naturalistic view", I won't object to that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:27, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
::::I could refute alot of things you said there but I'll stay on topic. By natural I mean the view that relies on natural processes rather than supernatural. The article already goes with this. It says "Most scientists today conclude that the Earth formed by natural processes, specifically by the accumulation of debris orbiting the sun billions of years in the past."
::::I could refute alot of things you said there but I'll stay on topic. By natural I mean the view that relies on natural processes rather than supernatural. The article already goes with this. It says "Most scientists today conclude that the Earth formed by natural processes, specifically by the accumulation of debris orbiting the sun billions of years in the past." {{unsigned|Glorfon}}
::::: You could ''try'' refuting a lot of the things I said, but whether you refutations would be correct is another matter. The view that ''relies on'' natural processes is ''naturalism'', the ''belief'' that everything can be/must be explained by natural processes. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:56, 20 October 2008 (EDT)